Com. v. Howard, L.
Com. v. Howard, L. No. 3233 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Lester Howard was sentenced on November 23, 2009 to 19–42 months’ incarceration plus four years’ probation for possession with intent to deliver; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Howard filed a pro se PCRA petition on May 2, 2014, alleging relief based on newspaper reports of malfeasance in the Philadelphia Narcotics Unit; he filed several pro se amendments.
- The PCRA court appointed counsel (Evarts), who filed a Turner/Finley letter and moved to withdraw arguing the petition was time‑barred; Evarts was permitted to withdraw and new counsel (Wolfe) was appointed and also moved to withdraw on eligibility grounds (sentence expired).
- The PCRA court issued a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice, dismissed the petition on August 2, 2016, and entered a second dismissal order on August 23, 2016 noting the case had been previously dismissed on August 2.
- Howard filed a notice of appeal 35 days after the August 2 order; the Superior Court found the appeal technically untimely but declined to quash due to a court docket breakdown that may have misled Howard about remaining appeal time.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal on the ground Howard failed to show he was still serving a sentence when relief was denied; thus he was ineligible for PCRA relief and counsel‑related claims were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the late notice of appeal should be excused | Howard argued he did not receive the August 2 order and was misled by docket entries about a continued hearing | Commonwealth/PCRA court relied on the August 2 dismissal; late filing untimely under Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) | Court excused/accepted the appeal due to a breakdown in court processes that could have misled Howard |
| Whether Howard was entitled to PCRA relief / deprived of PCRA counsel | Howard argued he was denied meaningful PCRA counsel and sought relief based on alleged police malfeasance | Commonwealth argued Howard was ineligible because he was no longer serving his sentence when the petition was dismissed | Court held Howard failed to show he was serving a sentence at disposition; under 42 Pa.C.S. §9543(a)(1)(i) and controlling precedent PCRA relief is unavailable and counsel claim need not be considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 699 A.2d 718 (Pa. 1997) (PCRA petitioner must be serving a sentence at both pleading and proof stages to remain eligible)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. 2006) (PCRA relief precluded for petitioners whose sentences have expired; failure to appoint counsel is harmless error where petitioner is ineligible)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appeal deadlines cannot be enlarged but relief may be granted for court process breakdown)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures for counsel withdrawal under Turner/Finley)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) (procedures for counsel withdrawal under Turner/Finley)